Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11315
of 2020
Applicant :- Surendra Pal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Omar Zamin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by accused-applicant, Surendra Pal, in Case Crime No. 820 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Omar Zamin argued nicely that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 30.11.2017; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. First information report was got lodged at 2:48 AM on 30.11.2017 for the occurrence of that intervening night of 29/30.11.2017 by Karn Singh, informant who is father-in-law of applicant. It has been written that after receiving information from son of applicant about this occurrence, he rushed on spot, found dead body lying under pool of blood and then after, he came to police station and get this case lodged, with specific contention that applicant was sitting at the roof of the house, he did not fled from the scene of occurrence. It was there in the statement under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. that some quarrel occurred with regard to transfer of house, in the name of applicant. Whereas no such motive is there in first information report. Marriage was much more old and this motive was developed and was of no substance. The documents, have been filed with supplementary affidavit as well as with bail application, with regard to ailment of applicant, wherein, he was suffering with psychiatric problem and he was under psychiatric treatment of his mental ailment in his Army Hospital too and even the Jail Authorities have submitted the documents with regard to his treatment of psychiatric problem and it's insanity. A plea of Section 84 of IPC in defence was taken by applicant before Sessions Court and it was very well pleaded by him that owing to insanity this could not be an offence, as it was committed under above insanity situation and it is very well supported by the conduct of applicant that he was present on the spot. He had neither run from the spot nor had committed any further repetition. It was owing to above insane position, for which there is an exception of law propounded by Apex Court 2002 6 Supreme 582 Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale versus State of Maharashtra; 2017 11 ADJ 723 Ram Autar Lodhi @ Munna versus State of U.P.; 2004 2 JIC 524 State versus Chandra Jeet Yadav, has been pressed. The prayer for bail has been made, because trial could not be proceeded, owing to insanity of applicant.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that it was instant report wherein father-in-law, who was owner of that house, for which pressure was being exhorted by applicant, for getting it transferred in the name of applicant, but deceased was opposing, got this report lodged with regard to murder, committed by applicant, of his wife, reported by his own son and the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of informant and two kids of deceased is there with the contention of commission of murder by licensed gun by applicant. Instantly, informant had rushed on the spot and instantly, it was reported. Even if, insanity is being taken, then there is every likelihood that applicant may flee from course of justice or may repeat the commission of offence with any one or may cause injury to his own person. Hence, for ensuring ends of justice, bail is to be rejected.
Having heard and gone through material on record, it is apparent that it was an instant report of offence of murder, committed by applicant, by a licensed gun. Instantly, statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded, wherein informant and two kids of deceased have narrated occurrence. Motive and sequence of occurrence has been said by them. Medico legal report of autopsy examination is there proving death owing to ante mortem fire arm shot injury. Plea of insanity is being taken under Section 105 of Evidence Act. It is a proof of fact to be given by defence against the presumption of no insanity and the same is factual aspect to be seen by trial court and not by this Court, in disposal of bail application. It is a question to be placed, proved or disproved, appreciate, analyzed and decided by the trial court and no other Court than trial court can decide it.
This bail application has been moved by brother-in-law of applicant, but admittedly being an army personnel, applicant was having licensed gun and he was suffering with mental aliment much before. But neither this licensed gun was surrendered nor gun was deposited in safe custody and this gun became weapon of offence of murder. If applicant is being enlarged on bail, then there is every likelihood, either he may injure himself or to any other person; repetition of that offence may be there or fleeing from justice under mental aliment;
documents are there that he has given proper treatment of insanity in jail premises and without commenting on facts and merits, the Court is of the confirm view that there is no ground for enlargement on bail. It is expected from trial Court to decide the case in accordance with law, rules and procedure with regard to plea of defence of insanity taken by any accused, if he claims, and is under treatment of insanity.
With this observation, this bail application is being rejected. Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Ravi Prakash